Eminent Domain - An Education For Me

Bill Quick posted yesterday
about a report on
local governments using eminent domain to condemn homes and business then transfer
the properties to another private owner (developers and other businesses) for their
own private use.

I first heard about eminent domain being used to take property for private use when
I lived in Dallas. When The Ballpark at Arlington was in development, eminent domain
was used to condemn homes sitting on property that the Ballpark's developers wanted
to use for parking. I was amazed that this was even legal - the government taking
someone's property by force in order to build a parking lot for a sports stadium.

When I heard about that report yesterday, I was curious again as to why exactly this
is legal. I decided to look it up today.

The power of (federal) eminent domain is implied in the 5th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution: ".....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation." The government has the right to take any property it wishes for public
use, but the owner must be paid the value of the property taken. State constitutions
have a similar if not identical provision in them regarding eminent domain.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided a case regarding eminent domain in 1954, giving a
green light to the government (Congress and state legislatures) to use the power of
eminent domain to condemn any property for any public use, public purpose, or
public benefit. That case was
BERMAN v. PARKER, 348 U.S. 26 (1954).

The Court said that Congress and Congress alone determines the valid reasons
(public use, purpose or benefit) to take property by eminent domain and that the Court
has little authority to challenge Congress in its determinations. (State legislatures
have the same authority at the state level.)

In addition, the fact that the property passes through or ends up in private hands
for private use is of no relevance as long as it conforms to the stated goals and
purposes of Congress.

Takings such as the one at The Ballpark in Arlington and hundreds more all over the
country have been done because the state legislatures passed laws defining the
justification and authorizing it. One method that seems to be popular is to
designate a neighborhood "blighted" condemn the properties, then turn them over
to a developer who promises to build more expensive housing, shopping centers
- practically anything that will bring the city more tax dollars. Costco stores
do this as a standard business practice.

I find this practice unconscionable. I cannot imagine what it would be like to live
in a home for 20 years, then receive a notice on my door that my home has been
condemned and I have to move out because Costco wants to build a store and put
a parking lot where my home currently sits. Since the courts have already ruled
that this is legal and constitutional, the only to stop this is to have the
lawmakers repeal the legislation authorizing these takings to occur in the first
place. Even better would be legislation that outlawed these types of takings.
Somehow, I think that is going to be an uphill battle.